Fight imperils high-speed rail in Illinois

Springfield, Ill.,
officials' public fight against additional train traffic along the Third Street
corridor could derail the entire plan to provide high-speed rail service
between Springfield and Chicago, a vice president of the Union Pacific Railroad
told the State Journal-Register. Alternatively, railroad vice president John
Rebensdorf warned in an Aug. 28 letter to U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the
railroad could carry out its plans unilaterally, and Springfield could "become
the bottleneck of the new high speed passenger rail route."

"

The resulting delays will
negatively impact the reliability of the new passenger service as well as
increase delays to motorists in the Springfield area due to unnecessary train
congestion," Rebensdorf wrote.

In the four-page letter,
Rebensdorf accused Mayor Tim Davlin, Sangamon County Board Chairman Andy Van
Meter and others in Springfield of not acting in good faith.

"Their strategy appears to
be to not deal with UP and IDOT (the Illinois Department of Transportation)
directly, but rather to force us to accede to their position through public and
political pressure and, in particular, force you (Durbin) or Governor (Pat)
Quinn, through IDOT, to impose a Tenth Street Corridor solution," the letter
states.

Davlin, Van Meter and
others have been pushing for further study of their preferred option - routing
high-speed trains and additional freight traffic along Springfield's Tenth
Street railroad line. The city, county and Greater Springfield Chamber of
Commerce have said that a Third Street route would create traffic tie-ups,
close crossings and hurt long-term economic development plans. IDOT and the
Union Pacific maintain that Third Street is the only practical route through
the city, especially if Illinois is to capture a share of federal economic
stimulus funds set aside for high-speed rail.

Rebensdorf's letter to
Durbin complains that Davlin and Van Meter have employed a "campaign of
misinformation" to inflame community groups. The railroad has not publicly
fought such misinformation, the letter says, because "we do not desire to get
drawn into a media discussion of High Speed Passenger Rail in Springfield, but
rather desire to negotiate a solution both sides can live with."

The UP doesn't want to
negotiate through the media, the letter adds.

Unless Springfield
officials change course, Rebensdorf's letter states, the city could become a
bottleneck in the high-speed route.

"It is entirely possible
that the actions of the Springfield Group could cause the High Speed Rail Initiative
between Chicago and St. Louis to fail and cause Union Pacific to withdraw from
the effort," Rebensdorf wrote. "From the start, we have consistently stated
that we would only agree to host this service on our line if all the conditions
could be put in place that we believe are necessary to make the service a
success. Control of our own, dedicated route through Springfield is one of
those conditions."

Upgrading the Tenth Street
track would be "significantly more expensive and have a far more detrimental
effect on the Springfield community than we expect the Springfield group will
admit to," he wrote. "In summary, we do not believe that the Springfield group
is dealing with us in good faith. They basically are saying our plan cannot and
will not be done, and they are interested in working with us only on their
consolidated Tenth Street Corridor. It is unfortunate that in this case, the
Union Pacific desires to work up-front with the community to find a solution,
but the community is saying it won't cooperate or compromise...."

Van Meter said via email
late Tuesday that he and Davlin "explained to the UP early in our discussions
that we have had an obligation to inform the community of the issues and
options it faced.

The State Journal-Register
Tuesday also obtained an Aug. 7 letter from Rebensdorf to Davlin, Van Meter and
Milt Sees, a consultant to the local group, in which Rebensdorf outlined the
railroad's difficulties with the Tenth Street corridor.

A 10th Street alignment
would be more dangerous than Third Street, the letter said, and would create
new problems involving coordinating with other railroads, inadequate sidings,
trackage and signals and effects on nearby neighborhoods, the Aug. 7 letter
says.

"We do not see how our
concerns can be effectively addressed by the consolidated 10th Street corridor
proposal," Rebensdorf concluded.

In an Aug. 26 letter to
Davlin, Van Meter and Sees, Rebensdorf expressed disappointment that they had
not provided the UP with comments on the railroad's draft of a Third Street
improvement plan.

"We continue to stand ready
to work with you in a cooperative manner to fashion a mitigation plan for the
Third Street Corridor," the Aug. 26 letter states. "However, as we have told
you on numerous occasions, we will not do this through the media."